What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5142708 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5142708?

Costs Of Reletting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Maintain Insinkerator: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $3,520.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142708?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12407198-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5142708 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5142708?

Costs Of Reletting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Maintain Insinkerator: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $3,520.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142708?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12407198-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5142708 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5142708 — net $590.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 25 February 2025	$3,520.72		Rent to 25 February 2025
Costs of reletting	$500.00		Costs of reletting
Failure to maintain insinkerator		$250.00	Failure to maintain insinkerator
Total award	$4,020.72	$250.00
Net award	$590.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5142708 — net $590.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 25 February 2025	$3,520.72		Rent to 25 February 2025
Costs of reletting	$500.00		Costs of reletting
Failure to maintain insinkerator		$250.00	Failure to maintain insinkerator
Total award	$4,020.72	$250.00
Net award	$590.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The fixed term is reduced, and the tenancy ended on 25 February 2025.
The landlord is awarded rent to 25 February 2025 and the costs of reletting.
[The tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Lachlan & Rachael Finch $590.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Lachlan & Rachael Finch immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants appeared. Mr Berryman and Ms Moulden appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 03 May 2024 and was for a fixed term to end on 09 April 2025. On 23 December 2024, the tenant asked the landlord if they could end the fixed term. The landlord sent the tenant the standard terms for breaking a fixed term lease, which included liability for rent until a replacement tenant was found and the reasonable costs of reletting.
The landlord began marketing and conducting viewings. The tenant vacated the property on 20 January 2025. On 22 January 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking to reduce the fixed term. The tenant also alleged that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, specifically in relation to the laundry tub, toilet seats, insinkerator, garage door, and net curtains.
On 11 February 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim seeking rent to the end of the tenancy, a break lease fee, and compensation for damage to the kitchen bench and failing to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition. The tenancy ended on 25 February 2025 when the landlord entered into another tenancy agreement. On 06 June 2025, the matters were scheduled for hearing on 17 July 2025. Prior to the hearing, the landlord was granted an adjournment and on 25 August 2025 the matter was rescheduled for hearing on 12 September 2025. Law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
Section 66(1) of the Act allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Under section 66 of the Act, the unforeseen change of circumstances must relate to the tenant personally, and not the property.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by unilateral notice. Section 50(1)(d) of the Act provides that parties to a tenancy, periodic or fixed term, may bring a tenancy to an end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy or offers up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent. In which case the parties have agreed to terminate the tenancy.
Section 44A of the Act states that if a tenancy is terminated under section 50(1)(d) the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant reasonable costs associated with that termination and finding a new tenant. A landlord who seeks to recover these expenses must first provide an itemised account of these expenses to the tenant.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Under section 46 of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain locks and other similar devices such as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
The onus of proving the claims that there has been a breach rest with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The each must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act.
Whether the party has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence. Reduction of fixed term.
The tenants resided at the property with three children aged 10 – 16. At the commencement of the tenancy both tenants were employed. In early December 2024, one of the tenants discovered that they were to be made redundant in the new year. The tenant had been with the same employer for 5 years.
As redundancy was going to place the family under significant financial stress, on 23 December 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that they sought to end the fixed term and intended vacating on 24 January 2025. On the same day, the tenant entered into another tenancy agreement with another agent for the same property management company, commencing 24 January 2025.
Later that day, the landlord responded that they would agree to end the fixed term on terms consistent with the tenant’s obligations under the agreement and the Act. These included liability for rent until a new tenant was found and reasonable costs associated with reletting the property. The costs were detailed in an email.
The parties conducted themselves under the terms of the break lease and the property was offered for rent. The first viewing was conducted on 07 January 2025. The landlord stated the holiday period delayed the process. In order to attract a new tenant as quickly as possible the advertised rent was reduced. Initially, the relationship remained amicable, but as time progressed the tenant came under increased financial pressure, disputes arose over liability.
The tenant vacated on 20 January 2025. On 22 January 2025, the tenant’s redundancy was confirmed. A letter from the tenant’s employer has been produced. A new tenancy was entered into commencing 26 February 2025. The landlord seeks rent to that date and reletting costs of $500.00. The landlord no longer pursues claims for damage or lawn maintenance, and those claims are dismissed.
During the hearing, the tenant stated that they accepted liability for rent to the commencement of the new tenancy and the break lease fee, which they acknowledge had been discounted. However, they expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had reduced the rent for the incoming tenant without offering them the same relief, given their financial difficulties.
The tenant offered the landlord the bond as reasonable compensation but was reluctant to offer more.
The landlord accepts redundancy can be an unforeseen change of circumstances. They state that they acted quickly to seek the owner’s instructions and marketed the property as soon as practicable after the statutory Christmas holiday period. The landlord believes that the tenant worsened their financial position by entering into another tenancy before being released from their existing obligations. They also add that the tenant had not raised the issue of rent relief. Decision on reduction of fixed term
Although each case will be determined on its facts, redundancy has previously been accepted by the Tribunal as an unforeseen change of circumstances.
The parties agreed in principle to end the fixed term and objectively appeared to have conducted themselves according to the landlord’s offer of 23 December 2024.
The holiday season significantly affected the ability to find a replacement tenant. In the circumstances, the eight weeks it took was not unreasonable. I am also satisfied that the reletting costs are reasonable.
The fixed term is reduced, and the tenancy ended on 25 February 2025. The landlord is awarded rent to 25 February 2025 and the reletting costs. Tenant’s claims
The tenant states that they uploaded with their application photographs in support of the claims. These have not made it onto the file, nor have they been provided to the landlord. The previous adjournment was at the request of the landlord. The tenant was offered an adjournment but declined. The Tribunal must therefore determine the claims on the evidence available.
The issue in these claims is whether there is sufficient evidence of the fault, and if so, whether the landlord failed to respond appropriately. Laundry tub
On 06 January 2025, there was a significant leak from the tenant’s washing machine located in the laundry in the garage. The tenant advised the landlord. The source of the leak was identified as a ruptured water hose connected to the taps on the nearby tub. A photograph of the tub and damaged hose has been produced.
The hoses run through holes in the side of the metal tub, which is standard for tubs of this type. In this case, the holes were not fitted with protective sleeves, and the hose came into direct contact with a sharp metal edge. It appears that the protective sleeves are made from rubber. The tenant states the natural movement and vibrations of the machine wore the hose, causing it to fail. The tenant’s washing machine is two years old.
A plumber attended on 13 January 2025 to investigate the matter. The plumber did not have the necessary parts to repair the machine or the tub at the time, and returned on 20 January 2025 to complete the job, which included installing the sleeves and replacing the hoses to the tenant’s washing machine.
The tenant argued that the two-week delay was unreasonable. They state they could not afford to purchase a hose and carry out the repair themselves, and between the 06 January 2025 and 20 January 2025, used a nearby laundromat.
The landlord argues that they are not at fault for the initial incident, and once notified they responded appropriately. Decision
I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Nor am I satisfied that the damage to the hose on the tenant’s washing machine was the result of an act or omission on the part of the landlord. There is insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which the lack of protective sleeves contributed to the failure. The tenant connected the machine to the taps themselves. The absence of rubber sleeves appears to have gone unnoticed by both parties until the flood occurred.
Once advised the landlord responded appropriately and paid for replacement hoses. Although it is not directly relevant to determining the landlord’s liability, the cost of using a laundromat would have far exceeded the cost of a temporary repair. Toilet seats
There are two toilets. The tenant states that on 08 May 2024, they sent the property manager an email containing a list of faults. These included the toilet seats, which the tenant states where an incorrect fit and kept sliding off the bowl. Despite raising the issue, nothing was done. The property manager concerned left the landlord in July 2024 and was replaced by Ms Moulden.
The tenant stated that they had raised it again at two subsequent inspections with Ms Moulden, in August and November 2024. The tenant also stated they raised it in an email to the landlord on 06 January 2025. The tenant states that the plumber who attended the property on 13 January 2025 also looked at the seat and advised that they were unsafe, and they were replaced on 20 January 2025.
The landlord denies the issue was raised during inspections but acknowledged it had been mentioned in the tenant’s email on 06 January 2025. The landlord denied that the plumber had told the tenant that the toilet seats were unsafe but acknowledged that they had been replaced. Decision
The matter is not raised in the tenant’s email of 08 May 2025 as stated by the tenant. Ms Moulden denies it was mentioned in either of the property inspections. There are no photographs on which to make an objective assessment as to the nature of the alleged fault. The onus is on the tenant to establish the fault and that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. On the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach, and the claim is dismissed. Insinkerator
The kitchen contains two sinks, a main sink and a second smaller one fitted with an insinkerator. The tenant states that the insinkerator was missing its splash baffle and was therefore dangerous. They describe an incident where a piece of eggshell flew out of the insinkerator and struck the tenant on the forehead. The tenant states the issue was noted in their email dated 08 May 2025. The tenant states that raised it with Ms Moulden at the August and November 2024 inspections but not addressed until 20 January 2025.
The landlord states that the matter was only raised during the inspection in November 2024. As the insinkerator was not listed as a chattel it was not treated as an urgent repair. The landlord states that the tenant would have been told that the insinkerator was not a functional appliance, and that due to potential problems, such as this, they discouraged owners from installing them in rental properties. The landlord states the insinkerator was removed and replaced with a standard waste pipe.
The tenant stated that it was not explained to them at the commencement of the tenancy that the insinkerator was non-functional. Decision
Although no photographs of the insinkerator have been produced, the fault has been sufficiently described by the parties. The issue is mentioned in the tenant’s email dated 08 May 2025. I accept the argument that without the splash baffle the unit posed a safety risk. The fact that the insinkerator was not listed as a chattel is not relevant. The splash baffle is a safety feature and is something that could have been easily replaced. The Tribunal therefore awards the tenant compensation of $250.00 for loss of amenity. Garage door.
The property has an internal garage with a tilt door. The tenant states that on Saturday 28 December 2024, the door came off its tracks and could not be fully closed. The tenant states that they sent a notification to a maintenance app managed by the landlord and also messaged Ms Moulden, who they state suggested that the tenant call the landlords office. They claim they did but no one answered.
The tenant also states they sent a photograph of the door to Ms Moulden, and it was clear that the door was noticeably open. The tenant state the matter was not addressed until 07 January 2025. The tenant states that the delay was unreasonable.
Despite looming financial difficulties, the tenant states that they had taken annual leave and planned to travel over the holiday period. The tenant states that the garage is easily visible from the roadside, and that there is no lock on the internal door from the garage into the house. The tenant states that they could not leave the property unsecure and therefore could not travel as planned.
Ms Moulden states that she was away on leave on 28 December 2024. Upon receiving the message and maintenance notification the next day, she messaged the tenant suggesting that the tenant call the landlord’s office, which would be staffed on Monday. Ms Moulden denied receiving a photograph of the door. She states that nothing further was heard from the tenant about the door.
On 04 January 2025, she messaged the tenant stating that a contractor had been arranged for 06 January 2025. The contractor was unable to attend on that date but did so the next day. Decision
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately.
All correspondence between the parties concerning the matter was by text message. There is nothing in the tenant’s text messages to suggest that the matter was urgent and that it interfered with their travel plans. The correspondence from the tenant between 28 December and the New year focused primarily on finding a replacement tenant, not the garage door.
While a photograph was sent to Ms Moulden, it has not been produced, and I am therefore unable to assess whether the matter would have appeared urgent.
The claim is dismissed. Curtains
The tenant claims that the ventilation at the property was inadequate and that excessive condensation occurred, although no formal claim has been made. The tenant states that shortly after moving in they discovered that the net curtains throughout the property had been mould stained. The tenant stated they removed and washed the curtains but could not remove the stains, so decided not to rehang them. The tenant states that at the inspection in August 2024 they had advised Ms Moulden that the curtains had been damaged, washed, and stored away.
Ms Moulden acknowledged that the curtains had been raised but stated that there had been no request that they be replaced. Decision
No photographs of the curtains have been produced. I am not satisfied that the tenant raised the matter in such a way that the landlord understood that they were seeking replacement. The first the issue appears to be raised as an alleged failure is in the tenant’s application. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Assessed globally, I consider that both parties have been substantially successful and are therefore entitled to name suppression. Although they are entitled, the landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenant does, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142708 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142708 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions